Messrs CENTRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. and others vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX and others

ORDER

' AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common order we intend to dispose of the above petitions which are directed against a common judgment dated 7-2-1995 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh in Constitution petition No,D-1695 of 1993 and the other connected Constitution petitions filed by the petitioners against the notices issued by the official respondents under sections 65 and 66-A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, for reopening the assessments already finalized on the ground that the dividend income received by the petitioners which are Insurance Companies was not treated in terms of section 26-A read with the First Schedule, dismissing the same.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention that this Court has already granted leave in Civil Petitions Nos.98-K to 105-K, 138-K to 142-K of 1995 and 146-K to 150-K of 1995 by an order dated 5-4-1995 to consider inter alia the following question:--- "Whether the learned Judges of the Sindh High Court at Karachi correctly interpreted the provisions of section 26(a) read with the provisions relating to Tax Rate Structure of the First Schedule applicable to dividend income as also whether notice issued under section 65(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 was based on 'definite information' as contemplated under the law?'

' In the aforesaid petitions it was also ordered that the appeals shall be heard on the existing record within three months from the date of the order. The above leave granting order was followed in Civil Petitions Nos. 156-K to 159-K of 1985, 170-K, 173-K to 176-K of 1995 inasmuch as leave was granted by an order dated 8-5-1995.

3. However, Mr. Sheikh Haider, learned ASC appearing for the official respondents/caveators, has submitted that the above petitions merit dismissal as the assessments pursuant to the impugned notices have already been finalised and recoveries have already been made and the parties have filed appeals etc. Against the above assessments.

4. We have noticed that in the above first leave granting order, in Civil Petitions Nos.103-K, 104-K and 105-K of 1995, stay order was not granted, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that in the said cases, the assessments were finalised.

5. Since earlier this Court has already granted leave against the judgment of the High Court which is also the subject-matter of the present petitions, in order to follow the rule of consistency, we are inclined to grant leave in the present cases to consider inter alia the question on which earlier leave has been granted. However, we are not inclined to grant any stay order. Leave is, accordingly, granted. The appeals arising from the above petitions may also be fixed with the appeals arising out of the aforesaid petitions in which earlier leave was granted, in terms of the order dated 5-4- 1995 i,e, within three months of the above order.